Changes in rules.txt - Page 3

SlowThinker · June 29, 2003, 09:45

So the debate implies Legions are not used. So why not to change their stats? Boco's suggestion looks interesting.

C-F-G · June 29, 2003, 16:43

What do you think about removing the GW from the rules.txt?

Imo the advantage the GW gives is too huge, because you can't sabotage the walls in a single city...LH is too kind of a bit overpowered - one need up to 5 normal triremes to destroy 1 vet trireme

I normally play 1x1xdeity maybe the things change with 2x2xking don't know...

Hydey · June 29, 2003, 18:22

I don't think you need to change the rules.txt to prevent players building certain wonders, you just agree not to build them at the start of the game.

SlowThinker · June 29, 2003, 19:34

There is a debate about GW and SunTzu at Civ2-Strategy. Some people thinks ST is better that GW. GW expires early, ST makes vet ironclads.

Anyway I would prefer to adjust stats of a wonder than to make it impossible. You can make it more expensive, move under another tech or let it go obsolete sooner.

SlowThinker · June 29, 2003, 19:38

Quote:

Originally posted by C-F-G
LH is too kind of a bit overpowered - one need up to 5 normal triremes to destroy 1 vet trireme

What is LH?

DrSpike · June 29, 2003, 19:53

Lighthouse.

War4ever · June 30, 2003, 01:10

u dont need 5 boats....2-3 max will take out a vet trireme unless you have bad luck....

gw blows...it only prevents the inevitable if your under siege...which is the horror of seeing vet cannons replace those catapults

Straybow · June 30, 2003, 04:57

Boco, I think you meant to say:

Quote:

[Defender fortified]
Vet legion vs archer -> 82%
Musket vs archer -> 87%

[Defender in Fortress]
Vet legion vs archer ~~dfx3~~ df×2 -> 65%
Musket vs archer ~~dfx3~~ df×2 -> 59%

[Defender behind Walls]
Vet legion vs archer dfx3 -> 49%
Musket vs archer dfx3 -> 42%

If you really want Legions to be more effective, I'd say dropping cost from 40 to 30 would do it. Might as well change Archers to obsolete with Iron while you're at it. That would make Iron far more valuable than the mere stepping stone to Gunpowder you MP guys call it.

[mumbles] Barbarians!

Straybow · June 30, 2003, 05:04

Thinking out loud, as it were, does the 172 trick cause the unit to suffer partial move rejection when trying to enter rough terrain? That would be a major drawback.

atawa · June 30, 2003, 06:14

Quote:

Originally posted by C-F-G
What do you think about removing the GW from the rules.txt?

Imo the advantage the GW gives is too huge, because you can't sabotage the walls in a single city...LH is too kind of a bit overpowered - one need up to 5 normal triremes to destroy 1 vet trireme

I normally play 1x1xdeity maybe the things change with 2x2xking don't know...

Yes, my earlyest Magalans to date was in 1850BC, when playing on anything bigger then 50x50 you realy dont want to spend 4 vans on LH but instead getting 4 techs and the 500-1000 extra gold to build the 8 you need for Magalens.

SlowThinker · June 30, 2003, 06:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Straybow

Thinking out loud, as it were, does the 172 trick cause the unit to suffer partial move rejection when trying to enter rough terrain? That would be a major drawback.

Probably not, since the Legion has his full movement.

atawa · June 30, 2003, 06:38

Interesting discovery

, you can make movable fortresses with say stats 0,10,1/3.

rah · June 30, 2003, 08:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Straybow
If you really want Legions to be more effective, I'd say dropping cost from 40 to 30 would do it. Might as well change Archers to obsolete with Iron while you're at it. That would make Iron far more valuable than the mere stepping stone to Gunpowder you MP guys call it.

[mumbles] Barbarians!

That makes more sense. But we do like to minimize changes to the rules. While we usually play with the same people, there are enough new players. They will read the RAH rules thread and still laugh at you when you build oracle not realizing that it has been extended.

RAH

Boco · July 1, 2003, 01:28

Thanks for the typo correction, Straybow.

SlowThinker's right. You can always move one square. So, mf=1/3 is one slow alpine unit.

You can actually have af's>0 for mf=1/3 (i.e. 171). When they attack, you get the tired message. If the af is 0, partisans will have a heyday.

I suggested the mf=172 because it is a less drastic change than cost=30.

War4ever · July 1, 2003, 02:40

too many rule.txt changes makes the game fuzzy

SlowThinker · July 1, 2003, 06:33

You degenerated idler...

Sorry...

Why fuzzy? You must adapt, think about changes, find new strategies, maybe play one or two SP games (try SP deity+5, it is not so easy as deity).

I agree there would be a problem with 10 new different set of rules, but not with 1 or 2...

rah · July 1, 2003, 08:25

an SP game, no matter how difficult is still playing the predictable AI. MP is the only way.

War4ever · July 1, 2003, 15:01

they call the ai "pylon" for a reason ..... actually we call some civers that too

rah · July 1, 2003, 15:19

BE NICE

War4ever · July 1, 2003, 15:22

not anyone we play with

just some players have this reputation

rah · July 1, 2003, 15:24

Nice save

War4ever · July 1, 2003, 15:26

i think i have heard you use that word too Rah..... don't be so innnocent

SlowThinker · July 9, 2003, 19:56

In SP I never perceived Elephants are so early. (In MP La fayette showed me they are. Hopefully my warriors were on mountains)
So The Wheel is completely useless. Elephants should be moved, or their price should be higher.
What about Archers? Does anybody go for Warrior code? They might be useful in games without huts as an early attack unit. So Warrior code could fill that one tech in path to monarchy in place of Horseback Riding.

War4ever · July 9, 2003, 22:55

if you want to go for early STWA , WC is a great tech, even early b/c it fills the third row and it can be used for off/def when the barbs show up.

WC doens't screw you until after BW lol

DrSpike · July 10, 2003, 07:07

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker
In SP I never perceived Elephants are so early. (In MP La fayette showed me they are. Hopefully my warriors were on mountains)
So The Wheel is completely useless. Elephants should be moved, or their price should be higher.
What about Archers? Does anybody go for Warrior code? They might be useful in games without huts as an early attack unit. So Warrior code could fill that one tech in path to monarchy in place of Horseback Riding.

Ellies are very dear early on, and vulnerable to counters............phalanxes are cheap, and you'll likely have them fortified, and maybe on good terrain. It is pretty balanced IMO.

And you have to make the investment in ellies pay dividends before pikes, or it's gg.

Hydey · July 10, 2003, 07:12

I feel that this game must be fairly good otherwise we would not be still playing it. Therefore I think we should the bloody rules.txt. alone.

rah · July 10, 2003, 08:12

I mostly agree.
We've tried real hard not to screw with it. Just the oracle extension for us.

War4ever · July 10, 2003, 11:43

mainly b/c its a good wonder that just never lasted long enough to be usefull....

the gw we banned outright in anything less than a four man

SlowThinker · July 12, 2003, 07:55

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever in another thread
i agree caravans slow the game down,

Even I, a very slow player, consider caravans boring, especially after all those samson's and solo's discoveries. Now you can get very much from caravans, but it is extremely time consuming. After my first Early Landing Game I decided I will always play SP games where only undemanded deliveries are allowed.
This works well in SP, since normally caravans are unbalanced - they are too effective. But I don't know how are caravans in MP - I suppose they are balanced much better (since they are in danger): so you should switch caravan and freight in their slots so that caravans get that 1.5 times higher bonus. Or you can lower their price to 40, but then you should change price of wonders to 320 etc.

Edit: But spam should go back to 'rah rules' thread please

Edited by DrSpike's suggestion

DrSpike · July 12, 2003, 08:27

Change the last SP to MP.